Search results

It will have an albino gorilla.

Yes, to a degree. Yes, but not necessarily what a man will do, as per Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac. Only if you reject some of the evidences for open theism. Two, and even three, witnesses can lie, as per much of what is going on in the J6 trials, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot...

Right, that's what I said. Which I didn't say, and therefore I don't understand why you are arguing against it to me. So, how does He confirm something He didn't witness and is not available for Him to ever know again (events that happened in the past)? He CAN'T do it by going down to Sodom...

Part of their understanding, yes, but not part of the definition. Love is patient, but you don't have to not be "impatient"? Love is kind, but it's ok to be unkind? Love does not boast, except when it does boast? The definition doesn't have to include the not-opposite, though it does in...

Right. He said "according to the outcry against it that has come to Me." He already knows, but He is going to confirm it. He knows what the sin is, but there's something He doesn't know about it. He also knows the result, just as Abraham did, based merely on the statement above, because Abraham...

And perhaps the phrase should be, "the ability to want otherwise". Sometimes we want simething that is withheld from us, so the ability to do otherwise is not there.

He might mean something like when Adam was brought all rhe animals to name, the names were from him, and therefore none were wrong. God hadn't defined a wrong name for any animals, nor would He counteract Adam's names--it was Adam's jurisdiction as God had put them under his authority. But if...

Yes, but He is not controlled by His nature. He directs His nature. In other words, God wasn't made with some over-riding force in His character that causes Him to always love...He loves. Right. Because He never ceases to love us, but not because He cannot cease to love us. In other words, God...

I mainly want to address those parts where you referred to me, plus one other. To clarify, I acquiesced to the switch language, but only that mankind went from innocence to guilt with the eating of the tree. Yet, the suggestion was there before Satan's interaction: [Gen 2:16 KJV] And the LORD...

I think I would count myself in the camp of "God knows all things knowable." But I temper it with the idea that God observes things that happen in order to know them. He knows David's thoughts (words before they are on his tongue) because He searches David's heart, not because He just...

Good post, Clete! I have a couple of comments that aren't that crucial, but thought I'd verbalize them. No need to respond, as I don't want to interrupt your dialogue. Bingo! I would add, "or tends toward the negation, opposition, or destruction". Yep. I don't think this passage tells us God...

Whether it needs it or not, "autonomy" means freedom from God's law (specifically "self-law"). An autonomous person can have or not have consciousness of others. Consciousness of others can exhibit itself in either love or not love (hate, for instance). I don't see why consciousness of others is...

Not following very well. If "can", on purpose, that equals "made to be able", according to the definitions of "can" and "on purpose": (surely you agree that God was purposeful in His creating, and that nothing He created turned out unexpected, or "not very good"?) Can we back up and talk about...

I don't care so much about what it's called, as long as the descriptor is descriptive enough. "Free will" suggests things in my mind that are more descriptive than "imago dei", mainly because that term is used by so many for divergent meanings. For instance, some people think the image of God...

But the mixing is unnecessary for that passage.

So we're using the same characteristics of God to come to opposite conclusions. In my case, no other entities are necessary to the story, but in your case unnamed others are. You don't you think God can make a being that can choose evil over good without being responsible for that evil. I think...

Sure. But that's beside the point. Paul didn't suddenly change audiences there in that chapter of 1 Corinthians 10 compared to ch 9.

Dont forget the YE's. They are the most helpful. Not "we"! Thus the "our fathers" can be easily referring to the Jews' fathers without including the Gentiles he's writing to. Jewish ancestors coming out of Eqypt. Jewish members of the church of Jesus. Let's continue: 1 Corinthians 10:6-10...

Combination of this: Psalm 91:10-12 KJV — There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. And this...